Should voting be mandatory?

[Tyrathca]

Let's just ignore the fact that all countries where voting is mandatory ultimately became extremely liberal.

Really? All of them? By what measure?

By any measure Australia's border security is the very opposite of liberal, apart from being a product of the Liberal Party (which is actually the name of the conservative party). Australia isn't as conservative as the usa on average but it's also not like Europe either.

You see, when you get a bunch of ill informed, self involved people into a voting booth, you intrude on voting having any real value.

Voluntary voting doesn't stop that. You will just get opinionated self involved I'll informed people and those easily whipped into a frenzy voting. The stats are that US elections are largely based on emotions and how much they hate the other party. By far negative / attack adds are the most effective and preferred strategy.

The people who actually take their time to perform the privilege of voting make a more reasoned choice.

Except they don't. It would be nice and convenient if that were what happened though wouldn't it?

In other words, 'democracy' has it's own potential tyranny- by the majority. The democrats know full and well that they can turn the tables by getting every moron into a booth

Except that's not what happens in all countries that have mandatory voting.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

There's a reason why democracy exists...

it's because the general population is incredibly easy to manipulate, right?

 

[ok doser]

The better educated tend to be more liberal.

i spose that's so, if you're referring to those who are educated by retarded liberals like those who overwhelmingly populate the instructional ranks in public education

 

[Crucible]

Except that's not what happens in all countries that have mandatory voting.

Mandatory voting = infringing speech, over privileged groups, and otherwise tyranny of majority.

Largely the only countries which do not exhibit this are countries in need of participation to avoid oligarchy.


So, if you believe in the list above, then by all means, support mandatory voting. If not, then drop the deceitful thing is what I say_
First world countries want naive people to make ridiculously liberal decisions, and that is all.

It's no coincidence that liberals want BOTH mandatory voting and no required ID. I mean, give me a break :doh:

 

[Tyrathca]

Mandatory voting = infringing speech, over privileged groups, and otherwise tyranny of majority.

Can you be more specific about where this has actually occurred? And is your solution to tyranny of the majority to have a tyranny of a vocal minority?

Largely the only countries which do not exhibit this are countries in need of participation to avoid oligarchy.

Again can you be more specific? It does not match my experience and impressions of such countries.

So, if you believe in the list above, then by all means, support mandatory voting. If not, then drop the deceitful thing is what I say_
First world countries want naive people to make ridiculously liberal decisions, and that is all.

Except mandatory voting doesn't cause all first world countries to "make ridiculous liberal decisions". It would only cause this if most people are ridiculously liberal. That you despise mandatory voting is a tacit admission on your part that your particular views are not popular where you live so you want to avoid systems that dilute your tyranny of the minority.

It's no coincidence that liberals want BOTH mandatory voting and no required ID. I mean, give me a break :doh:

I assume you are suggesting they want this in order to allow widespread voting fraud. The problem is that where such systems have been implemented voting fraud can be all but nonexistent still.

You have this imaginary view of what mandatory voting will cause and you seem utterly convinced of it. But real world implementation in other countries has not always fit your predictions.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Wick Stick]

Mandatory voting would be a disaster.

The way America was originally founded, the only people who had a vote were those who owned land. This rule was not enacted our of some bass-ackwards culture of racism or misogyny. This was done because the founders were students of classical theories of government, and all of the classical theories of government hold that democracy is a corrupt form of government tantamount to mob rule. America was envisioned as a republic; not a democracy.

If you allow those who truly own no part of the country and have nothing invested in its success to run the country, they will invariably vote to take the property away from those who have it, and either give it to themselves, or have the government administer it on behalf of the general welfare.

The former option - the mass confiscation of private property which is then entrusted to some few privately held but government sanctioned barons of industry - is one we have seen in recent history. It goes by the name national socialism, and it was the engine which lifted post world-war I Germany out of economic ruin. The problem with this system is that eventually you run out of property to confiscate within your country, and it then becomes necessary to have a war so that you can confiscate someone else's property.

The latter option is simply communism. We already know that this devolves into a statist totalitarian regime and ultimately collapses into a free market.

 

[Tyrathca]

And yet countries which have actually enacted mandatory voting have not become national socialists or communists.

Your "will invariably" seems to have some pretty large real world variability.... Maybe because in reality most people own a part in the country (though measuring that with land owning in modern times is beyond stupid) and are invested in its success. If you think most people in your country are not then that to me seems like a failure of governance in and of itself.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Wick Stick]

And yet countries which have actually enacted mandatory voting have not become national socialists or communists.

Your "will invariably" seems to have some pretty large real world variability.... Maybe because in reality most people own a part in the country (though measuring that with land owning in modern times is beyond stupid) and are invested in its success. If you think most people in your country are not then that to me seems like a failure of governance in and of itself.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

That is how the Classical theory reads. From Plato's Republic and Laws. Does Plato need revision? Perhaps.

When I look at a list of countries with mandatory voting, it isn't very flattering. It turns out to be Australia, all the socialist countries in South America, and a few scattered totalitarian regimes (N.Korea, the DRC).

 

[Tyrathca]

That is how the Classical theory reads. From Plato's Republic and Laws. Does Plato need revision? Perhaps.

When I look at a list of countries with mandatory voting, it isn't very flattering. It turns out to be Australia, all the socialist countries in South America, and a few scattered totalitarian regimes (N.Korea, the DRC).

I'm not sure the totalitarian regimes should count since they are generally of the dictator takes power -> dictator holds sham elections with 100% turnout and (often) 100% support for the dictator (i.e. no votes were actually counted) to prop up his legitimacy. We don't consider them democracies (even though there is "voting") so why consider them real examples of mandatory voting?

As for "socialist countries in South America" that seems a tad unfair to those on the list (FYI yes I stole this list from wikipedia, comments beside countries are my own. Also FYI the USA is also a mixed economy with a tax burden %GDP of 25.1% and a government spending %GDP of 41.6%)

• Argentina – High income, G20 nation with a mixed economy. Tax burden (%GDP) 34.6%. Government spending (%GDP) 40.9%. South American
• Australia – High income, 12th largest economy, G20 nation with a mixed economy. Tax burden (%GDP) 25.6%. Government spending (%GDP) 35.3%. Oceania/South East Asia
• Belgium – High income with a mixed economy. Tax burden (%GDP) 44.0%. Government spending (%GDP) 53.3%. Europe
• Brazil – 8th largest economy, a G20 nation, mixed economy with a somewhat socialist current government (but also has non-socialist major parties able to gain power), bit of a mess right now due to corruption. Tax burden (%GDP) 34.8%. Government spending (%GDP) 39.1%. South America.
• Cyprus – High income, mixed economy. Tax burden (%GDP) 26.5%. Government spending (%GDP) 46.1%. Europe
• Ecuador – Developing nation. Mixed economy. Tax burden (%GDP) 17.6%. Government spending (%GDP) 44.0%. South America.
• Indian state Gujarat - This is just a state within a country soo..... don't really care. Asia
• Liechtenstein - Tiny tiny tiny barely-a-country country in Europe.
• Luxembourg – Very small country in Europe. High income, mixed economy.
• North Korea – Doesn't really count when they came to power without elections and there is only one person on the ballot paper (i.e. phoney elections). Asia.
• Nauru – Tiny tiny tiny barely-a-country island country in the Pacific.
• Peru – Middle income, a mixed economy (historically was quite socialist/communist in the 20th century but has significantly liberalised its economy from the 1990's onward). Tax burden (%GDP) 17.0%. Government spending (%GDP) 20.1%. South America.
• Singapore – High income, a mixed economy, world's only island city-state, single party rule largely through media control, independent polls indicate the votes are actually accurate to public sentiment (i.e. the votes themselves are "free/clean" even if the system itself is not), a "flawed democracy", historically a single party dictatorship. Tax burden (%GDP) 13.8%. Government spending (%GDP) 17.1%. Asia
• Uruguay – High income, mixed economy, Tax burden (%GDP) 27.2%. Government spending (%GDP) 32.6%. South America.

Lots of non-South American countries there and lots of non-socialist and non-totalitarian governments too...... But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 

[ricardo574]

If the topic is serious enough especially when the safety of women and children is evolved. Absolutely.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Tattooed Theist]

Should voting be mandatory?

Mandatory voting, would be a revoking of the right to chose weather to participate in politics or not. Land of the free? Not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

Mandatory voting, would be a revoking of the right to chose weather to participate in politics or not. Land of the free? Not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally mandatory voting just makes it mandatory to show up and have a ballot and pencil in your hands. It doesn't stop you from doing a protest vote by putting nothing (or nonsense) on the ballot.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

And yet countries which have actually enacted mandatory voting have not become national socialists or communists.

Those countries aren't very diverse either. The UK is like 92% white and heavily liberal. Mandatory voting was likely just one of the many pointless things produced from all the horn blowing over there.
Those people talk a lot of crap literally nonstop- 'bigot' is the new English word connector :freak:

 

[Tattooed Theist]

Generally mandatory voting just makes it mandatory to show up and have a ballot and pencil in your hands. It doesn't stop you from doing a protest vote by putting nothing (or nonsense) on the ballot.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Ah, I see.
I still would say that is useless and a violation of rights.
I dont see any legitimate reason to force people to drive there to check an empty box if they choose not to vote.

But I do see your point, thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[Tyrathca]

Those countries aren't very diverse either. The UK is like 92% white and heavily liberal. Mandatory voting was likely just one of the many pointless things produced from all the horn blowing over there.
Those people talk a lot of crap literally nonstop- 'bigot' is the new English word connector [emoji33]:

You didn't even read my list did you? Here is a hint, the UK want on it. But why let facts get in the way of a good story? Many of those countries have large indigenous populations, wealth divides, rural and urban divides, migrant populations, etc.

But I suspect from your response you don't care, no facts will reach your entrenched assumptions.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for everybody and their brother to vote, because government was supposed to simply be an automated machine- if there were to even be one. The President was supposed to be doing things other than diving into the private lives and rights of citizens.

'Mandatory voting' is just plain un-American. There needs to be a reduction, not an addition, to government influence and making everyone participate just enforces it's growing existence.

People need to acknowledge that America simply isn't like other countries- so stop trying to make it otherwise.

 

[rexlunae]

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for everybody and their brother to vote, because government was supposed to simply be an automated machine-

Hey, I've heard of that system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

if there were to even be one.

Yeah, you know, because governments never abuse their power when you don't have a mechanism of exercising any control over them. Just, unheard of, right?

The President was supposed to be doing things other than diving into the private lives and rights of citizens.

See, the problem with that is that, there's little consensus about what constitutes the private lives and rights of citizens.

'Mandatory voting' is just plain un-American. There needs to be a reduction, not an addition, to government influence and making everyone participate just enforces it's growing existence.

I'm not sure we've done well under a system where people don't have to interact with their government much. It leads to disengagement, which encourages autocrats.

People need to acknowledge that America simply isn't like other countries- so stop trying to make it otherwise.

Did you have any particulars in mind, or you just think it's somehow a special snowflake not subject to the regular rules of politics?

 

[Crucible]

Hey, I've heard of that system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy




Yeah, you know, because governments never abuse their power when you don't have a mechanism of exercising any control over them. Just, unheard of, right?



See, the problem with that is that, there's little consensus about what constitutes the private lives and rights of citizens.



I'm not sure we've done well under a system where people don't have to interact with their government much. It leads to disengagement, which encourages autocrats.



Did you have any particulars in mind, or you just think it's somehow a special snowflake not subject to the regular rules of politics?

Moron, listen to what I am telling you:

The FOUNDING FATHERS, who FOUNDED A SYSTEM OF LIBERTY, wanted government, if there should be one, to BE AN AUTOMATED MACHINE which does not INTERFERE WITH CITIZENS.

I find your whammy mouth, for no apparent reason other than to blatantly take what I say out of context, annoying. But I suppose that was the point

 

[Tyrathca]

You talk like the founding fathers were some sort of messiahs and the constitution they left behind is some sort of infallible holy document. Yet like any document it is open to interpretation, with toes being an outlier.

In reality they were just men with some good ideas some bad. I doubt they anticipated their system resulting in the current state of affairs though.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

You talk like the founding fathers were some sort of messiahs and the constitution they left behind is some sort of infallible holy document. Yet like any document it is open to interpretation, with toes being an outlier.

In reality they were just men with some good ideas some bad. I doubt they anticipated their system resulting in the current state of affairs though.

Agreed. No Holy Writ that. Good ideas? Equality before the law, unalienable rights, to check a few. Bad ideas? Those rights and that equality mostly reserved for the landed white guys, owning humans, and women as second class citizens.